Re: [PATCH 2/4] Add a __GFP_SLABMEMCG flag
From: James Bottomley <hidden>
Date: 2012-06-09 00:57:00
Also in:
linux-mm
From: James Bottomley <hidden>
Date: 2012-06-09 00:57:00
Also in:
linux-mm
On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 14:31 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jun 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:quoted
*/ #define __GFP_NOTRACK_FALSE_POSITIVE (__GFP_NOTRACK) -#define __GFP_BITS_SHIFT 25 /* Room for N __GFP_FOO bits */ +#define __GFP_BITS_SHIFT 26 /* Room for N __GFP_FOO bits */ #define __GFP_BITS_MASK ((__force gfp_t)((1 << __GFP_BITS_SHIFT) - 1))Please make this conditional on CONFIG_MEMCG or so. The bit can be useful in particular on 32 bit architectures.
I really don't think that's at all a good idea. It's asking for trouble when we don't spot we have a flag overlap. It also means that we're trusting the reuser to know that their use case can never clash with CONFIG_MEMGC and I can't think of any configuration where this is possible currently. I think making the flag define of __GFP_SLABMEMCG conditional might be a reasonable idea so we get a compile failure if anyone tries to use it when !CONFIG_MEMCG. James